• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

People only think it's outdated due to relentless attacks on it from private media.

There is no way a non tax funded BBC is able to put on the range of programming it does.
It's wildly outdated and majorly out of step with modern media.

In comparison to Netflix or Amazon Prime, you are getting far from a good deal. The news is good, and I really enjoy stuff like Peaky Blinders, Bodyguard etc but it majorly needs to modernize.

Honestly tho, the solution for individuals who don't like the license fee is to just stop paying it en masse. It says a lot that for years they secured payment off of the back of old wives tales about magic vans that could see inside your house and aggressive men demanding to come inside your living room.
 
TBH it entirely depends on how the new system would work.

The T.V licence is paying not only for the BBC, but any live T.V.

A TV Licence covers you to watch or record TV programmes live on any channel or TV service. This includes watching TV live online. A TV Licence also covers you to download or watch BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to any device and provider you use, including:

  • TV sets (including smart TVs)
  • DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders
  • Laptops and desktop computers
  • Tablets, mobile phones and other portable devices
  • Digital boxes or PVRs (such as Sky, Virgin Media or BT TV)
  • Games consoles
  • Media streaming devices (such as Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku and Now TV)
  • Freeview, Freesat or YouView
Currently it costs £159 per year, with 86% going to the BBC for programmes including radio, so £136.74 per year so it's not free T.V, never has been. A netflix subscription by comparison is £71.88. It depends whether you think that the extra 60 odd quid is worth those extra services. For example you have news, radio, education, arts, food etc.

Should people have to pay though for something if they don't use it? If you just watch Sky you still have to pay for the T.V licence.
However, what happens if the government just slaps a larger tax on T.V and streaming services? Could end up paying more, governments never like losing money even if they spend it elsewhere.

Personally I wouldn't miss it. I'd stream stuff elsewhere if needed. However, many people, including older people rely on it. If they suddenly had to worry about subscriptions instead of just paying a one off fee it could cause issues and leave people without services they rely on. Imagine a care home doesn't subscribe and the residents lose access to radio programmes.

Basically I'm happy for it to change, but I'd like to know how and I'd also like it to still be able to stay the same as I think in a world of streaming service overload, it's still something different.
 
It's wildly outdated and majorly out of step with modern media. In comparison to Netflix or Amazon Prime, you are getting far from a good deal. The news is good, and I really enjoy stuff like Peaky Blinders, Bodyguard etc but it majorly needs to modernize.
When I consider the huge swathes of content I don't consume that the BBC puts out compared to Amazon or Netflix I considering it extremely high value for money. The only people who come close are Sky and that costs considerably more either through dish or streaming services. And a lot of their best TV show content is HBO rather than their originals.
 
I would think older peeps could pay an annual subscription and not know the difference. It would only be in name only. But No more prosecution for no getting it.

But yes the services on offer and what would any subscription cover: radio, online news, basic tv content? The whole Britbox could be used as a way to replace BBC tv series content.
 
As I said the subscription model simply fails for the BBC at the content level. It simply can't run for profit and keep it up. Even hugely successful programming like GBBO never get started as its too much of a risk. You could go advertising but Channel 4 is extremely limited in diversifying itself.

The only answer really is keep government funding and finding it through tax elsewhere.
The Tories aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts to save the pensioners a few quid
Well as pointed out by sime if they wanted to save pensioners maybe not removing the funding for the free license fee for over 75's would of been a start.

This isn't anything new the BBC has been under threats like this since I can remember.


I'm all up for decrminalising the license though.
 
Also its unlikely Dorries survives a leadership change let alone the fact the next GE is 2014. I think is threats, posturing and part of Operation Save Big Dog as apart of the timing.
 
**** me the Dail Mail is desperate running a story from May last year twice on its front page.

(He also didn't break any rules, unless drinking beer at Lunch is)
 
Screenshot 2022-01-17 at 09.07.27.png

I mean the difference is pretty clear if you watch the clip rather than just look at that one screenshot - they were eating dinner, there's people milling about with plates of food etc.
Also there was only like 5 people in the room

All of that was within the restrictions at the time
 
View attachment 12979

I mean the difference is pretty clear if you watch the clip rather than just look at that one screenshot - they were eating dinner, there's people milling about with plates of food etc.
Also there was only like 5 people in the room

All of that was within the restrictions at the time
Yup on the edge of restrictions definitely and a luxury many of us couldn't do at the time. But still within.

It's also telling in its an old story how squeaky clean Starmer has been (or extremely careful). They can only dredge up one thing a bit like when they tried to nail him for the donkey sanctuary for his ill mother.
 
Also another example of how biased and partisan print media is in this country. There is no way you make the comparison unless you have a political agenda.
 
I mean yeah, beer and sandwiches ≠ wine and cheese OBVIOUSLY.....

I'd agree Starmers is less bad, but it's a worthwhile comparison and the lack of ability to see that from lots of people is very similar to the way that some people are still ardently backing Boris.
 
I mean yeah, beer and sandwiches ≠ wine and cheese OBVIOUSLY.....

I'd agree Starmers is less bad, but it's a worthwhile comparison and the lack of ability to see that from lots of people is very similar to the way that some people are still ardently backing Boris.
So having beer with 5 people is comparable to multiple parties of tens of people? Honestly, not sure how you can accuse people here of being biased in their view.
 
So having beer with 5 people is comparable to multiple parties of tens of people? Honestly, not sure how you can accuse people here of being biased in their view.
I'm suggesting that's it's a little close minded to say there's no comparison at all - especially the 15th? of May one where they were drinking whilst working in the garden (which I have major issues with regardless) which Keir etc attacked them for (rightly so).
 
I mean yeah, beer and sandwiches ≠ wine and cheese OBVIOUSLY.....

I'd agree Starmers is less bad, but it's a worthwhile comparison and the lack of ability to see that from lots of people is very similar to the way that some people are still ardently backing Boris.

Its not a worthwhile comparison, one is within the rules during the easing of the second/third lockdown, the other was a BYOB booze after work drinks during the first lockdown in clear breech of the rules, which Johnson claims he wasn't aware was against the rules and up to 14 other events excluding regular boozy Friday's.

The things aren't remotely comparable in that alcohol was consumed and people outside the household were present.

At worst for Starmer its one mistake against a clear culture of deciding the rules weren't for them.
 
I'm suggesting that's it's a little close minded to say there's no comparison at all - especially the 15th? of May one where they were drinking whilst working in the garden (which I have major issues with regardless) which Keir etc attacked them for (rightly so).
20th May 2020 V 30th April 2021, complete diffrent level of restrictions were in place. That's the bloody difference.
 
I'm suggesting that's it's a little close minded to say there's no comparison at all - especially the 15th? of May one where they were drinking whilst working in the garden (which I have major issues with regardless) which Keir etc attacked them for (rightly so).
I'll concede that you can't say there is no comparison at all. I will say there is no valuable comparison. I could make a huge list of the differences, but I'll keep it simple. One is the leader of the opposition following the rules. The other is of a corrupt government ignoring their own rules on multiple occasions because they think the rules do not apply to them.
 
I'd agree Starmers is less bad, but it's a worthwhile comparison and the lack of ability to see that from lots of people is very similar to the way that some people are still ardently backing Boris.
I dislike Starmer, there's no bias towards him from me - they're just wildly different circumstances

Starmers snaps were in the run up to the Hartlepool by-election which was a year later than some of BoJos get togethers

Working in an office, then eating a takeaway delivered to that office, then continuing to work is a bit different to a BYOB garden party, and was within the rules at the time

It's all an attempted distraction - there's a reason no one cared when they first came out but are now trying to whip up outrage now
 
It's comparably in the same way that driving after having haf a pint of shandy with a meal is comparable to driving after half a bottle of tequilla whilst dancing.

It's comparable in that both involve alcohol.
It's silly to make a comparison, because the purpose of the alcohol is clearly different, the quantity of the alcohol is clearly different, and the legality of driving afterwards is clearly different.
 
Top